TX House bans gay foster parents

[Mavdog]

...and in a related amendment, the House also bans left handed drivers from operating motor vehicles, and blonde women from attending any state funded universities.
ridiculous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House OKs CPS bill, bans gay foster care
GOP lawmaker tacks on measure late; joint talks with Senate ahead


10:39 PM CDT on Tuesday, April 19, 2005

By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – The Texas House approved a sweeping overhaul of protective services for children and adults Tuesday, including a last-minute amendment that would ban gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving as foster parents.

The amendment, tacked on by Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, was deemed "unworkable" by Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, R-Lampasas, sponsor of the overall House bill. But Ms. Hupp voted with the majority as the amendment was approved, 81-58.

Later, the amended overhaul of protective services passed, 126-16, setting up a battle with the Senate over how much of the system should be turned over to charities and for-profit businesses.

The House supports sweeping privatization; the Senate has passed a more moderate approach. They're expected to negotiate their differences in conference committee, where Mr. Talton's measure could get scrapped.

Ms. Hupp said though "I agree with the philosophy" of the Talton amendment, it is one of the main reasons that the Senate probably won't accept the House version, forcing a conference committee to be named. She said she's not sure what conferees would do with the provision.

Rep. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, a co-author of the bill who is likely to be named to the conference committee, said he's not sure if the gay foster ban would survive.

"I would hope the Senate will have a little more sense ... and be a little bit more sensitive," he said.

The ban on gay foster parents, which Mr. Talton had previously failed to push past House committees, came late and unexpectedly.

Mr. Talton convinced his colleagues that all current and prospective foster parents be required to declare their sexuality. Those who declare themselves – or are later found to be – gay, lesbian or bisexual would be disqualified.

"It is learned behavior," Mr. Talton said of homosexuality.

House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, said he had no choice but to allow a vote on Mr. Talton's amendment.

"We looked and it ... and ruled it was germane" to the bill, he said. "That's just the way the process works."

The amendment brought swift objection from Kathy Miller, president of the progressive Texas Freedom Network.

"The House today put personal and political biases ahead of the interests of children who have been abused and neglected," Ms. Miller said, adding that the measure would "further strain a foster system that is already overburdened, forcing more children into institutions rather than safe, loving homes."

"Texas children who most need the state's protection have been cast aside in favor of a narrow, mean-spirited agenda."

Arkansas is the only state to have attempted to ban gay foster parents. The state imposed its prohibition in 1999 as a regulation, but it was struck down by a state judge last December.

Several states, including Florida, Utah and Mississippi, restrict gay adoptions in various ways.

Before Mr. Talton's amendment, privatization was expected to be the biggest talker in Ms. Hupp's protective services bill.

Ms. Hupp said Child Protective Services and its sister agency, Adult Protective Services, are failing in their missions. Investigations by the state and media organizations, including The Dallas Morning News , have supported her view.

"The system is broken and we together must fix it," she said.

Ms. Hupp said "the Senate's plan did not go far enough" in outsourcing CPS' foster care duties to private firms but promised: "The House will go far enough."

Neither chamber would bring Texas' spending at CPS and APS up to par by outside standards, though current high caseloads would shrink by about 40 percent by 2007.

Gov. Rick Perry declared overhaul of the two divisions an emergency topic this session after repeated reports that overworked, poorly trained workers failed to remove children from abusive families and the frail elderly from squalid, vermin-infested homes.

Like the Senate version passed March 3, the House bill would require closer coordination between CPS and law enforcement, better training at both agencies and an updated questionnaire to determine whether elderly Texans are competent to live independently. Malicious false reports of child abuse would bring felony punishment of up to two years in jail.

But the two chambers part ways over case management, in which a state CPS worker now manages therapies, works with a child's family and helps with a court case.

The Senate would create a pilot program in one region to test privately-run case management. The House specifies a timetable for complete statewide privatization over six years.

Also, under the House bill, private businesses could be hired to be the "independent administrator" for various regions of the state, deciding placements and managing other private service providers.

[kingrex]

I wonder if these senators/representatives are willing to serve as foster parents to replace any potential foster parents (who hapeen to be gay)?

If they want to help these poor foster kids by providing them a home, I say let them.

[dude1394]

Hmm...they may have something to do with the budget?

Also not sure they are keeping them from getting a home, just not condoning homosexuality.

[kingrex]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Hmm...they may have something to do with the budget?

Also not sure they are keeping them from getting a home, just not condoning homosexuality.

I understand that, but don't you agree that more foster parents equates to more foster homes to place these kids in?

Perhaps it's a bit of an oversimplification, but maybe you have a better grasp of the issue than I.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: kingrex

I understand that, but don't you agree that more foster parents equates to more foster homes to place these kids in?.

yeah, but what level of risk is acceptable? It would be a bad idea to open up every existing home to foster kids.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

yeah, but what level of risk is acceptable? It would be a bad idea to open up every existing home to foster kids.

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to let any foster children be raised by a bigoted legislator like Talton.

[dude1394]

See what I mean... Mavskiki is prejudiced against bigots, he wouldn't want to have a child raised in a home with a bigot, others don't feel that a child should be raised in a home with a homosexual.

[kingrex]

I suppose it depends on how one sees homosexuality, as a choice or as a state of being.

If a person equates bigotry as akin to homosexuality, then I can see the logic of your contention.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: dude1394
See what I mean... Mavskiki is prejudiced against bigots, he wouldn't want to have a child raised in a home with a bigot, others don't feel that a child should be raised in a home with a homosexual.

You have nothing against bigots, Dude? Just live and let live?

Would you like to articulate a defense of bigots and bigotry here?

Technically, you're right I guess. Bigoted speech does enjoy some constitutional protections. But Talton has crossed the line from speech to action, and in so doing has brough shame upon the Texas House. Based on his actions and the type of anti-social values with which he would likely infect a foster child, I would not find him suitable as a foster parent.

In the same way that other more reasonable people would find skinheads, or White supremacist groups, or anti-Semites, or proponents of genocide, or rapists, or drug dealers, or pimps unsuitable for foster parenting.

Let the water rise to its level.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

You have nothing against bigots, Dude? Just live and let live?

Would you like to articulate a defense of bigots and bigotry here?

Technically, you're right I guess. Bigoted speech does enjoy some constitutional protections. But Taltpn has clearly crossed the line from speech to action. Based on his actions and the type of values he would likely impose on a foster child, I would not find him suitable as a foster parent.

Let the water rise to its level.

No, I don't like "bigots" perse. But if someone who doesn't feel that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle (and especially a lifestyle to be celebrated and condoned) is a bigot, then I think your definition is too broad. I don't support someone who is against women or against a person of another race or rednecks or yokels etc. But there are mores to society that some people are against that seem quite justified (nambla, pedophilia, beastiality, polygamy, incest, even homosexuality). Just because you do not feel that homosexuality is one, doesn't make those who do bigots, except in your opinion.

[dude1394]

In the same way that other more reasonable people would find skinheads, or White supremacist groups, or anti-Semites, or proponents of genocide, or rapists, or drug dealers, or pimps unsuitable for foster parenting.

Well rapists, drug-dealers, pimps don't seem suitable either. White supremacist groups or anti-semites, blacks who hate whites, mexicans who hate blacks and others probably shouldn't be foster parents either if it's blatant and provable.

It's the states responsibility to screen and determine who should be foster parents and all of those may knock them out and if the state decides to legislate that, it's certainly within their purview and I would probably agree with them.

Some people would probaby feel that a strict jehovah's witness shouldn't be a foster parent either, not so sure there would be that much of an outrage however.

But we aren't talking about someone being bared from being a foster parent because of their free-speech or some other constitutional right, but the "right" of the populace to determine what is/is not acceptable behaviour.

I would imagine that a prostitute would also have a tough time becoming a foster parent as well.

[dude1394]

For example here is a statement on the Nambla web-page.

Man/Boy Love and the Gay Movement

Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers,
and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
complementary facets of the same dream. -- David Thorstad

If I don't believe that boy-lovers should be able to be foster home parents am I a bigot? This man says I am, in 20 years will main-stream culture also say so? He also says someone is a bigot who doesn't believe that homosexuals should be foster parents.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: dude1394
For example here is a statement on the Nambla web-page.

If I don't believe that boy-lovers should be able to be foster home parents am I a bigot? This man says I am, in 20 years will main-stream culture also say so? He also says someone is a bigot who doesn't believe that homosexuals should be foster parents.

The bigotry question aside, if your rationale is to say that anyone who purports to defend Cause A is representative of EVERYONE who defends Cause A, and that by extension Cause A and its defenders can be discredited by the actions of anyone who defends it, I would find your logic indefensible.

[dude1394]

Whew, lot's of cause A's in there and I don't really understand what you are saying.
EDIT: After thinking some more about it, I think I do understand what you were saying, but it wasn't my point with the example,just that there are activities that just because some people think is okay, doesn't mean it is. And the people that do not agree are not necessarily "bigots".

The point I was trying to make is that society has the right to determine what is and is not acceptable. If they do so that doesn't necessarily make them bigots. Homosexuality is not a normal act by definition.

Society in general should be tolerant of the private affairs of people, but I see no reason that society must automatically condone those affairs. Nor do I think it is a wise course to pretend that homosexuality is a normal practice and therefore all young boys and girls either "should" be encouraged or placed in a situation where they might be.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: dude1394
For example here is a statement on the Nambla web-page.

If I don't believe that boy-lovers should be able to be foster home parents am I a bigot? This man says I am, in 20 years will main-stream culture also say so? He also says someone is a bigot who doesn't believe that homosexuals should be foster parents.

You were on the NAMBLA web page? Ha! What were you doing there man?

[dude1394]

Well only for about 20 seconds, I think I'm still okay. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[MavKikiNYC]

The point I was trying to make is that society has the right to determine what is and is not acceptable. If they do so that doesn't necessarily make them bigots. Homosexuality is not a normal act by definition.

It's not the "determining what is and is not acceptable" that makes members of a society bigots; rather, it is the "obstinate, intolerant, irrational belief in the correctness of their own opinions and prejudices, and the attempts to impose such beliefs on other members of society who do not share them" that pretty much dictionary-defines them as such. Your assertion that homosexuality is not, by definition, a normal act is in opposition to the collective opinion of psychiatric and mental health professionals, whose metier it is to define such "normalcy".

Society in general should be tolerant of the private affairs of people, but I see no reason that society must automatically condone those affairs. Nor do I think it is a wise course to pretend that homosexuality is a normal practice and therefore all young boys and girls either "should" be encouraged or placed in a situation where they might be.

You seem to equate "condoing those affairs" with affording equal protection under the law, or refusing to deny equal rights. That understanding of "condone" is particular to you, and both your choice of language and your obstinate, intolerant, irrational attitude toward homosexuality (which by your own acknowledgement you have very limited first-hand familiarity with other than occasional forays onto the NMBLA website) reveals much.

What you seem to oppose (fear?) most is that parent-less, family-less young boys and girls being provided a loving, caring, nuturing upbringing in a foster home would develop the seemingly foreign concepts of tolerance and open-mindedness by seeing that gay or lesbian parents could be just as loving, caring, nurturing and "normal" as any others.

Would you also oppose the placement of foster children in a home with heterosexual parents who did not share your views on homosexuality? On religion? On politics? Your answers to these questions will define you in a way that I don't have to.

[Drbio]

You know the sad thing about all this? Noone ever asks the kid if he/she would be agreeable to living in a homosexual environment. Of course the infants have no say, but what about those kids who do? I'd wager that the VAST majority would say no.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Drbio
You know the sad thing about all this? Noone ever asks the kid if he/she would be agreeable to living in a homosexual environment. Of course the infants have no say, but what about those kids who do? I'd wager that the VAST majority would say no.

I'd wager that the vast majority of parentless children have such a limited notion of sexuality and what is and isn't "normal", that it wouldn't calculate into their desire to be taken care of and loved.

I'd be interested to know how many children raised by homosexual parents (foster or otherwise) have asked to be taken OUT of those homes. My guess is that the incidence is virtually zero.

OTOH, there are at least a few documented and well-publicized cases of children divorcing heterosexual (and biological) parents, and countless cases of children's being removed from homes headed by unfit heterosexual parents.

Those really aren't comparisons that work in favor of Talbot's brand of bigotry.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

It's not the "determining what is and is not acceptable" that makes members of a society bigots; rather, it is the "obstinate, intolerant, irrational belief in the correctness of their own opinions and prejudices, and the attempts to impose such beliefs on other members of society who do not share them" that pretty much dictionary-defines them as such. Your assertion that homosexuality is not, by definition, a normal act is in opposition to the collective opinion of psychiatric and mental health professionals, whose metier it is to define such "normalcy".

This is what I don't get. It is not "normal" in the sense that it is not genetically or biologically "normal". Is this not true? Is it your contention that there is no biological element to sex? I don't know if it is "normal" mentally or not. The mainstream culture (but not the majority of the citizens) seems to have decided that homosexuality is as normal and unavoidable as baldness. I am not convinced of this fact. I understand people being attracted to the same sex as I understand people being attracted to S&M and other sexual practices, but imo, that is not necessarily normal.

Society in general should be tolerant of the private affairs of people, but I see no reason that society must automatically condone those affairs. Nor do I think it is a wise course to pretend that homosexuality is a normal practice and therefore all young boys and girls either "should" be encouraged or placed in a situation where they might be.

You seem to equate "condoing those affairs" with affording equal protection under the law, or refusing to deny equal rights. That understanding of "condone" is particular to you, and both your choice of language and your obstinate, intolerant, irrational attitude toward homosexuality (which by your own acknowledgement you have very limited first-hand familiarity with other than occasional forays onto the NMBLA website) reveals much.[/quote]

Hmmm... I don't remember recounting my "first-hand" familiarity of homosexuality. I've never engaged in it, what constitutes first-hand familiarity? I do not have personal homosexual friends, I have worked with homosexuals and not felt either threatened or bothered by it. But to be honest they were discreet people, much like most people are discreet about their sex lives.

I understand that you feel I have an obstinate, intolerent, irrational attitude towards homosexuality, but the only way I can NOT have this attitude in your opinion would be if I unequivically accept all homosexuality as just as normal as red hair. Your attitude quite frankly does not allow another opinion, it's your way or the bigot way. Any restrictions on homosexual behaviour in your opinion is bigoted, period.

Well here is pretty much my attitude towards homosexuality.
- Should a homosexual be refused a job, housing, etc. No, I dont' think so and I wouldn't do so. But should a person on the other hand be forced by law to rent a room to a homosexual if they were disturbed by it, No, I don't think so either.
- Should I have a class in school teaching how homosexuals are normal and mainstream. No, I do not think so.
- Should someone who believes that homsexuality be wrong be forced to allow their children to be in a situation where they feel their child can be influenced by that homosexual. No
- Do I really care if someone is homosexual. No. I have worked with, hired and fired colleagues who were homosexual. I really don't care personally, but I'm an adult.
- But I do not consider it a normal act, nor a normal lifestyle. I certainly do not see my sexuality as a protected constitutional right.

Is it sad that a person who is homosexual does not enjoy the open-ness and acceptance of all of our society. Yes it is sad, but as their lifestyle is pretty much on the fringe of society, then I don't see that changing, nor necessarily should society accept homosexuality as the norm just for accomodation.

What you seem to oppose (fear?) most is that parent-less, family-less young boys and girls being provided a loving, caring, nuturing upbringing in a foster home would develop the seemingly foreign concepts of tolerance and open-mindedness by seeing that gay or lesbian parents could be just as loving, caring, nurturing and "normal" as any others.

Would you also oppose the placement of foster children in a home with heterosexual parents who did not share your views on homosexuality? On religion? On politics? Your answers to these questions will define you in a way that I don't have to.

What I oppose (fear?) is that an impressionable person (a child in this case) will be unduly infuenced and confused about their sexuality because they are living in a family that is (imo) also confused about their sexuality, thereby causing them distress in the future. I also oppose (fear?) society making the homosexual lifestyle seem to be normal, cool, something to do... I have the same issue with society making rap, sex, drugs normal, cool and something to do.

I do not equate homosexuality with religion, politics. You do I imagine. I equate homosexuality as an out of the mainstream lifestyle.

[MavKikiNYC]

This is what I don't get. It is not "normal" in the sense that it is not genetically or biologically "normal". Is this not true? Is it your contention that there is no biological element to sex? I don't know if it is "normal" mentally or not.

You'd have to frame your questions at least a little more precisely. I wouldn't want to define your arguments for you.

Start with what your understanding of the term "normal" is. Then follow up with what you mean by "biological element".

[dude1394]

Normal as in birds and bees... Normal as in evoultionary sexual enhancements and other mechanisms that naturally attract the female to the male of the species.

Normal as in sodomy is not normal, it may be enjoyable, but not normal.

[MavKikiNYC]

Still fuzzy, Dude.

Surely you're not going to try to argue that "normal" as it pertains to sex is only about pro-creation.

Because then you'd have to account for the statistical reality that the majority of sexual exchanges do NOT result in the formation of an embryo, rendering all such heterosexual exchanges "abnormal". Actually, in that sense, actual pro-creation would be the ab-normal outcome, and I'm pretty sure that's not the contradiction you're attempting to capture.

Alternatively, you'd be left explaining how post-menopausal sex or sex where one of the partners were infertile was ab-normal (in the deviant sense).

Not to mention the common sense reality that sex is much more motivated by: 1) the biological urge to experience pleasure; or 2) the emotional urge to express love than the aforementioned conscious urge to pro-create.

Finally, you'd have to at least explore the notion that if homosexuals were evolutionary biologicial anomalies in the procreation sense, then you'd expect to see them less capable of procreating. And this, to the consternation of tut-tutting fundamentalists, is manifestly not the case.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

It's not the "determining what is and is not acceptable" that makes members of a society bigots; rather, it is the "obstinate, intolerant, irrational belief in the correctness of their own opinions and prejudices, and the attempts to impose such beliefs on other members of society who do not share them" that pretty much dictionary-defines them as such. Your assertion that homosexuality is not, by definition, a normal act is in opposition to the collective opinion of psychiatric and mental health professionals, whose metier it is to define such "normalcy".

You seem to equate "condoing those affairs" with affording equal protection under the law, or refusing to deny equal rights. That understanding of "condone" is particular to you, and both your choice of language and your obstinate, intolerant, irrational attitude toward homosexuality (which by your own acknowledgement you have very limited first-hand familiarity with other than occasional forays onto the NMBLA website) reveals much.

What you seem to oppose (fear?) most is that parent-less, family-less young boys and girls being provided a loving, caring, nuturing upbringing in a foster home would develop the seemingly foreign concepts of tolerance and open-mindedness by seeing that gay or lesbian parents could be just as loving, caring, nurturing and "normal" as any others.

Would you also oppose the placement of foster children in a home with heterosexual parents who did not share your views on homosexuality? On religion? On politics? Your answers to these questions will define you in a way that I don't have to.

Hot damn!

I tell you, Urbane Conservatives and small 'l' Libertarians are going to lead our people to the promise land! Well said Kiki.

[dude1394]

Looks like you are just being obtuse to make other points about "sex" not being a traditional definition of sex. I think you are getting my drift, you may not agree with it, but it's a pretty simple statement of what normal is.

So normal in this case is the use of the equipment the way the equipment was designed to be used. Sure it's enjoyable to use the equipment in other ways as well, it may even be enjoyable to use the equipment with all sorts of other creatures, machines, etc., damn near anything, but that would not fit the definition of normal as I am using it.

Not to mention the common sense reality that sex is much more motivated by: 1) the biological urge to experience pleasure; or 2) the emotional urge to express love than the aforementioned conscious urge to pro-create.

I actually don't necessarily agree with this statement. I might be convinced otherwise but I'm not sure how you can seperate such low-level biological urges so cleanly. You might even make a case (again I'm speculating) that individuals who do NOT respond to those low-level biological urges to procreate have a prediliction to be gay. Beats me, i'm speaking from ignorance here.

Finally, you'd have to at least explore the notion that if homosexuals were evolutionary biologicial anomalies in the procreation sense, then you'd expect to see them less capable of procreating. And this, to the consternation of tut-tutting fundamentalists, is manifestly not the case.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I would expect that through history homosexuals did not procreate as much as heterosexuals. Again as per my above statement they may actually BE less emotionally capable of procreation. Not physically but because without a "sub-conscious" urge to pro-create they do not. I do not know the statistics but I would imagine that homosexuals do not procreate as much as heterosexuals.

[Usually Lurkin]

The issue does not have anything to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong/natural or unnatural, and it has nothing to do with whether homosexuals can provide a home that's better than the abusive homes that children are taken out of. It has everything to do with whether it's better to take a kid out of an abusive household (where there are security and identity issues already in place) and place them in a home with heterosexual parents or to place them in a home with homosexual parents. Since research shows greater stress for kids in homosexual households v. kids in heterosexual households (research disagrees about degree), it's a legitimate concern. no matter what the cause of that stress. Even if that stress is caused by the bigotry the kids receive on behalf of their homosexual parents, it's still unfair to place the kids in that situation. If you want to get rid of the bigotry first, and other wise prove that same-sex parenting is as stable as heterosex parenting (all else being equal - anactdotes abound on both sides), that's fine. But until then, don't go using children to advance that agenda.

[MavKikiNYC]

So, UL, if research indicates that children in African-American households are subject to more stress (and more stress-related diseases) than non-African-American households, is that similarly a reason to reject African-Americans as foster parents--no matter what the cause of that strees is. Even if that stress is caused by the bigotry the children endure because of their African-American parents? Should African-American foster children be removed from households headed by African-American foster parents until bigotry, racism and prejudice are eradicated in America?

Also, regarding the research to which you refer, I"d certainly be interested to see some of those studies, and to know more about the researchers who conducted them and the institutions who sponsored them. I've never seen a study that concludes what you suggest, let alone any reputable ones.

The logic of the mind often reveals the motives of the heart.

[Usually Lurkin]

your analogy is crude because it ignores an interaction between parents' race and children's race. Legitimately, I'd say that in so far as African american children report greater stress and identity issues when raised by whites, then yes. It's a bad idea to place blacks in white homes or whites in black homes when placement involves children already at risk. If you can prove beyond doubt that a child will grow up homosexual, and that they would probably experience less stress in a homosexual household than heterosexual household, then you've got a legitimate analogy. The goal should always be: given what we know, where do we place this child to absolutely maximize the stability of their environment.

More to the point, we can look at risk levels, and ask society, "what risk is acceptable for your children? " I'd be willing to bet that most texans (if asked honestly) would say there is high risk involved in placing children into homosexual households, and that it's better not to do that until the environments are proven safe. Other risks that I personally would say are unacceptable (like crossing ethnic lines, or placing these at-risk children into single parent families), society would probably say are acceptable risks. I'd like to emphasize that the debate would be entirely different if we were talking about birth adoption, or other children that aren't already primed for developmental problems.

I have a reasearch list somewhere, and will post it after I have a chance to look for it.

[MavKikiNYC]

your analogy is crude because it ignores an interaction between parents' race and children's race. Legitimately, I'd say that in so far as African american children report greater stress and identity issues when raised by whites, then yes. It's a bad idea to place blacks in white homes or whites in black homes when placement involves children already at risk. If you can prove beyond doubt that a child will grow up homosexual, and that they would probably experience less stress in a homosexual household than heterosexual household, then you've got a legitimate analogy. The goal should always be: given what we know, where do we place this child to absolutely maximize the stability of their environment.

Your attempt to rebutt is crude because it avoids (intentionally?) the essential question--if some research (be it nebulous or substantial) argues that African-American foster children in foster homes headed by African-American foster parents experience greater levels of stress (or other pernicious effect) because of bigoted attitudes, policies, institutions and/or acts against the African-American parents, is it your contention that African-American children (or any child) should not be placed in households headed by African-American parents?

You can even alter the parameters to mitigate the factor of race--what if the child is of mixed ethnicity? where should the child be placed?--and the flaws in the logic of your argument are even more apparent.

The solution you suggest would further reduce and limit the already scarce number of caregivers, based on assertions rooted in much contested (and largely refuted) premises--namely that homosexual foster parents are less capable of providing a stable home/family environment for a child in need.

The reality is that there is a shortage of foster homes and foster parents of whatever persuasion (racial, sexual, political, religious) to provide homeless and parentless children a nurturing, caring, loving, stable environment. Given the circumstances, the state is often hard-pressed to provide ANY environment at all for these, let alone one that meets your definition of "stable".

[kingrex]

I agree that the state has the responsibility to define what household is considered "acceptable" for foster homes.

However, until it is proven that a homosexual household is an unfit environment to raise a child, then I don't believe that those individuals who happen to be gay should be prevented from petitioning to be foster parents. Especially in light of the limited amount of qualified foster parent candidates.

Moreover, a child raised in a homosexual household does not have a higher chance of being homosexual, contrary to popular belief.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Your attempt to rebutt is crude because it avoids (intentionally?) the essential question--if some research (be it nebulous or substantial) argues that African-American foster children in foster homes headed by African-American foster parents experience greater levels of stress (or other pernicious effect) because of bigoted attitudes, policies, institutions and/or acts against the African-American parents, is it your contention that African-American children (or any child) should not be placed in households headed by African-American parents?

The essential question is what is best for the child. And again, the goal should always be to place the child in the best home possible, given what we know of "best homes possible". We do know the race of children, and we do know that there is an interaction between race of the child and race of the parent. In order to answer the essential question, "Given what we know, where is the best home to place the child." We should use that information. To ignore that interaction between the races of parent and child is to avoid the essential question.

You can even alter the parameters to mitigate the factor of race--what if the child is of mixed ethnicity? where should the child be placed?--and the flaws in the logic of your argument are even more apparent.

best place would be a mixed race household, where someone else will already have dealt with the specific racial issues the child will be dealing with. I don't see the flaw.

The solution you suggest would further reduce and limit the already scarce number of caregivers, based on assertions rooted in much contested (and largely refuted) premises--namely that homosexual foster parents are less capable of providing a stable home/family environment for a child in need.

That's a non-point. As argued above by someone else, it also reduces the number of caregivers if you disqualify members of the KKK, members of NAMBLA, chronic pot smokers, gamblers, and government hit men. People also argue that these households are perfectly stable and acceptable. The reduction of number of caregivers and/or the presence of debate is not a defacto argument to qualify a person for foster parenthood.

The reality is that there is a shortage of foster homes and foster parents of whatever persuasion (racial, sexual, political, religious) to provide homeless and parentless children a nurturing, caring, loving, stable environment. Given the circumstances, the state is often hard-pressed to provide ANY environment at all for these, let alone one that meets your definition of "stable".

That depends on who you ask. It's probably more legitimate to claim that there is a shortage of "good" foster homes. many people claim that there is a lot of abuse in the texas system by unqualified foster parents who merely want a check from the government. These people claim that children sometimes die in the system at the hands of bad foster parents. It seems a bad idea to correct the faults of a system by relaxing the risk tolerance rather than making sure the level of risk acceptable to the public is legitimately met. A better approach would be to increase recruitment of secure and stable households.

[mnmpeanut]

i think the point that is being missed is that the legislature is, imo, unnecessarily limiting a valuable resource - a caring, loving home for foster children. this isn't a matter of choice, this is a matter of need. for the child, this isn't a choice between a heterosexual family unit or a homosexual family unit, this is a choice between a caring, nuturing (hopefully) environment with adults who want to help raise them or staying in an institution or an abusive situation.

i think a child who has spent any significant time in an institution or bouncing from foster family to foster family would welcome the extra "stress" of living with a homosexual family unit, as long as the situation was stable and supportive.


i have to say, i think this portion of the article pretty much sums it up for me:

"The House today put personal and political biases ahead of the interests of children who have been abused and neglected," Ms. Miller said, adding that the measure would "further strain a foster system that is already overburdened, forcing more children into institutions rather than safe, loving homes."

[kingrex]

Originally posted by: mnmpeanut
i think the point that is being missed is that the legislature is, imo, unnecessarily limiting a valuable resource - a caring, loving home for foster children. this isn't a matter of choice, this is a matter of need. for the child, this isn't a choice between a heterosexual family unit or a homosexual family unit, this is a choice between a caring, nuturing (hopefully) environment with adults who want to help raise them or staying in an institution or an abusive situation.

i think a child who has spent any significant time in an institution or bouncing from foster family to foster family would welcome the extra "stress" of living with a homosexual family unit, as long as the situation was stable and supportive.


i have to say, i think this portion of the article pretty much sums it up for me:

I think that's a bit disingenuous. I think both sides really believe they are helping the kids here. It really just boils down to whether or not one thinks that a homosexual household can be good enough to raise a child properly.

[MavKikiNYC]

The essential question is what is best for the child. And again, the goal should always be to place the child in the best home possible, given what we know of "best homes possible". We do know the race of children, and we do know that there is an interaction between race of the child and race of the parent. In order to answer the essential question, "Given what we know, where is the best home to place the child." We should use that information. To ignore that interaction between the races of parent and child is to avoid the essential question.

It still seems that you're trying to avoid answering the question, but I infer that you're backpedaling as fast as you can from any connection to the idea that foster children shouldn't be placed in a home of a specifc race because of alleged "research" that shows even a specious association with stress levels inflicted upon the children due to external influences beyond the parents' control (i.e., race in this instance). So it would be logically inconsistent to persist in arguing that such a standard should be applied to foster parents who are homosexual.

The best place would be a mixed race household, where someone else will already have dealt with the specific racial issues the child will be dealing with. I don't see the flaw.

This kind of statement makes me wonder if you know anything at all about foster family programs. The state is not in the position of being able to select from an extensive bank of foster families of every possible demographic permutation so as to "maximize" the child's well-being. States are lucky to be able to find households (period) who can provide the child with the support and stability they need. You can't offer one iota of substantial research that support your claim regarding children of mixed race, and I know of a couple of concrete examples that would blow any such claims out of the water.

That's a non-point. As argued above by someone else, it also reduces the number of caregivers if you disqualify members of the KKK, members of NAMBLA, chronic pot smokers, gamblers, and government hit men. People also argue that these households are perfectly stable and acceptable. The reduction of number of caregivers and/or the presence of debate is not a defacto argument to qualify a person for foster parenthood.

Sorry, it is THE point. You suggest further limiting a scarce resource based on smear-tactic rationale--unproven, unprovable, unfounded "research" rooted in the bigoted belief that homosexuals are incapable of being good parents, incapable of providing stable homes, and unworthy of being considered alongside heterosexual citizens as capable, responsible, contriubting members of society. To persist in arguing those claims is shameful, and to compare rejecting homosexuals to rejecting members of the KKK, or NAMBLA, pot smokers, gamblers, or government hit men shows your truest colors.

That depends on who you ask. It's probably more legitimate to claim that there is a shortage of "good" foster homes. Many people claim that there is a lot of abuse in the texas system by unqualified foster parents who merely want a check from the government. These people claim that children sometimes die in the system at the hands of bad foster parents. It seems a bad idea to correct the faults of a system by relaxing the risk tolerance rather than making sure the level of risk acceptable to the public is legitimately met. A better approach would be to increase recruitment of secure and stable households.

There's a shortage period--whether we're talking "good" by YOUR definition or "good" by mine. There is far greater risk to leaving these children to be shuffled around in a system by reducing the number of qualifed foster parents based on a bigoted premise. Again, you should be ashamed to pretend to argue that with a "straight" face.

[kg_veteran]

Wow, interesting thread. I'll admit that I haven't read every post word for word, but a couple of points:

1. Kiki, it's fallacious for you to compare race to homosexuality, because you're begging the question. We know for an absolute fact that you are born of a certain race; that is undisputed. It is HOTLY disputed (here on this message board and in society in general) whether a person can be born homosexual or not.

2. I really doubt that anybody involved is thinking first and foremost about the interests of the children involved. That's not to say that they aren't concerned about that, but this is more about two competing political agendas, and I don't know why we should pretend that it isn't.

[mary]

Sorry, it is THE point. You suggest further limiting a scarce resource based on smear-tactic rationale--unproven, unprovable, unfounded "research" rooted in the bigoted belief that homosexuals are incapable of being good parents, incapable of providing stable homes, and unworthy of being considered alongside heterosexual citizens as capable, responsible, contriubting members of society. To persist in arguing those claims is shameful, and to compare rejecting homosexuals to rejecting members of the KKK, or NAMBLA, pot smokers, gamblers, or government hit men shows your truest colors.

AMEN.

[Murphy3]

Gays and lesbians are unfit to raise children. They don't even know what they're supposed to do with their penis and/or vagina. How can they know what to do when it comes to raising a child?

What's going to happen? Will the child grow up having sexual intercourse with squirrels and dogs? Talk about a confused society. Can you imagine the impact that allowing gays and lesbians to raise children would have on our entertainment industry? What's the show where the gay guys come in and gay-out an otherwise normal man subjecting him to all kinds of gaydom. Well, I can only imagine that the gayification of our country would quickly render the U.S. as unimportant as other countries such as Mexico and France on the gobal scene.

On second thought, gays and lesbians should be allowed to raise children. However, they should have to have direct supervision from a social worker 24/7 for the first couple of years... Once it's determined that they're not going to gayify the child, the social worker can give them the ok to proceed on unsupervised.

[mercury_rev]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Wow, interesting thread. I'll admit that I haven't read every post word for word, but a couple of points:

1. Kiki, it's fallacious for you to compare race to homosexuality, because you're begging the question. We know for an absolute fact that you are born of a certain race; that is undisputed. It is HOTLY disputed (here on this message board and in society in general) whether a person can be born homosexual or not.

2. I really doubt that anybody involved is thinking first and foremost about the interests of the children involved. That's not to say that they aren't concerned about that, but this is more about two competing political agendas, and I don't know why we should pretend that it isn't.

KG, why does the issue turn on whether homosexuality is matter of choice or of genetic predisposition? If it can be shown with a reasonable amount of objectivity that homosexuals generally make for unfit foster parents, then the nature of its origin is irrelevant, isn't it?

As for race: if, counterfactually, reasonable evidence existed that, say, Whites and Hispanics were generally bad foster parents while Blacks and Asians were generally good foster parents, wouldn't the legal case for favoring some races over others turn on these facts alone, regardless of the additional fact that race is not a chosen attribute?

You may well be correct that this particular debate is charged with an undue infusion of political opportunism on both sides, as are most political debates within the halls of state or federal legislatures. But the motives of political players on either side don't change the central issue: are homosexuals generally fit to be foster parents?

Murph, great satire!

[kg_veteran]

mercury_rev - Because Kiki was implying that African-Americans could be excluded from foster parenting based on the fact that they are African-American. Such conduct would pretty clearly violate the Equal Protection Clause. The same is not true of excluding homosexuals on the basis that they are homosexual. The two groups are not viewed the same, Constitutionally speaking.

From a practical standpoint, I can see the arguments for and against allowing homosexuals to serve as foster parents. I come down on the against side, but I can see and understand Kiki's point of view.

From a political standpoint, even though I'm sure some Republicans truly believe that homosexuals aren't fit to be foster parents, this to me appears to be a preemptive strike to block the next logical move by the pro-homosexual lobby: to legalize homosexual adoption in Texas.

[kingrex]

Originally posted by: mercury_rev

KG, why does the issue turn on whether homosexuality is matter of choice or of genetic predisposition? If it can be shown with a reasonable amount of objectivity that homosexuals generally make for unfit foster parents, then the nature of its origin is irrelevant, isn't it?

I know this was directed at KG, but if I may be allowed to rebutt (funny word).

The relevance of origin is important because the question of whether a homosexual home is fit or unfit, by this law, is NOT allowed be asked.

By this law, a homosexual couple don't have the ability to even petition to be foster parents. This is mainly due to the belief that being homosexual is a lifestyle choice and not biologically determined.